Why Pulling Music From Spotify Only Holds Back The Artist Doing The Pulling

from the 1.-Eliminate-revenue-stream-2.-Gripe-about-it-3.-???-4.-Profit! dept

David Byrne, former lead singer of the Talking Heads, has pulled "as much of his catalogue" as he can from Spotify. Why? Because it's the thing to do these days. Abused math and sins of omission have led to headlines declaring Spotify to be the worst ripoff since the major labels, paying only pennies for millions of plays. Many artists have done it. Some are insulted by the low payoffs. Others believe it will cannibalize their sales.

Byrne's editorial for the Guardian names a few of these artists -- the Black Keys, Aimee Mann, Thom Yorke, etc. These artists have withheld their music from the super-popular streaming service simply because they've deemed the payout too low, and the risk of losing sales too high, to take part in the way people listen to music at the present. A rather strange about-face for Byrne, who previously lauded Radiohead's pay-what-you-want experiment and other efforts along that same line.

Along the way to what I feel is the simplest, most succinct point to be made in this Spotify "debate," Allen also points out how Byrne (along with Thom Yorke and others) are clouding the issue by couching the discussion of dispassionate themes (economic and technological shifts) in emotional language ("fairness," "ethical internet"). Critics of Spotify insist the royalty payouts are too low -- proof that the streaming service is evil -- despite the fact that these payouts are 70% of Spotify's revenue.

As for the decline of the recording industry -- which Allen takes pains to point out is not the same thing as the "music industry" -- it's been a long time coming. This doesn't mean music is dying -- only the industry that attached itself to musicians in a remora-like fashion and sucked as much income out as possible over the past several decades is dying. As Allen puts it in his post, the recording industry simply made it possible for artists to "pay off the mortgage, but never own the house" by providing advances in exchange for copyright control.

The industry was set up to fail -- an untenable construct that began to disintegrate upon the first sign of friction. What the industry considers to be right and fair and normal -- selling music to make money -- is nothing more than a blip on the timeline, as no less an old-school artist than Mick Jagger has stated.

[T]here was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone.

So if you look at the history of recorded music from 1900 to now, there was a 25 year period where artists did very well, but the rest of the time they didn't.

But here's the ultimate point:

One thing is certain: When artists remove their music from Spotify they are simply ensuring that they will receive zero royalties from that service. They will also ensure that they are not in a service that provides massive distribution of their work that is not a walled garden like FM radio is. And remember, not all artists are popular therefore not all artists receive the same amount of royalties from airplay or from streaming services. It is worth noting that Spotify has one billion playlists created by users. Musicians are not the only creators. Internet users most likely make far more content to post to the Web for free than all musicians combined. It’s a societal phenomenon that can’t be denied.

The first sentence is key. As has been stated here before, you cannot achieve a positive result simply by removing a negative. Labels and movie studios may spend tons of money fighting piracy, but that doesn't budge the needle towards a purchase. If millions of people are happy "renting" their music through streaming services (or YouTube), you can't push them towards a purchase by removing your music. They'll likely just find someone else to listen to, and when that artist tours or runs a Kickstarter or whatever, it's the artists they've been listening to that will receive that additional support.

All these artists are doing is shutting down a revenue stream under the mistaken impression that they'll pick up the money elsewhere. It may only be pennies, but it's pennies they don't need to lift a finger to collect. For every artist that has pulled their music from Spotify and pointed to first week sales as "proof" that ditching the world's most popular streaming service "works," there's another list of artists that have sold just as much without resorting to cutting out streaming revenue.

Giving music fans fewer reasons to use Spotify is also short-sighted. As a streaming services, its high end is only limited by the number of users. If enough artists pull out, the service loses some of its ability to attract users. Artists should want millions more to join, which is the most efficient way to increase royalty payouts. More users is more money. If Spotify manages to find a way to attract more paid users, the amounts will increase exponentially.

Cutting Spotify out doesn't make sense, no matter how small the checks are. You can't "force" sales, especially not when your attitude fails to sync with a majority of your potential customers.

[Bonus: here's some Shriekback for your listening pleasure, just in case your estimation of Dave Allen needed to be increased...]

So why should artists enrich this grifter, either?

"Critics of Spotify insist the royalty payouts are too low -- proof that the streaming service is evil -- despite the fact that these payouts are 70% of Spotify's revenue." -- SO? Spotify adds nothing, and, just estimating at a mere 5% of revenue, that's SHEER PROFIT for doing nothing!

"All these artists are doing is shutting down a revenue stream under the mistaken impression that they'll pick up the money elsewhere." -- YOU are mistaken that's the reason. -- What is it about Spotify that provokes this reaction? -- Spotify is getting SOME money while paying almost nothing to those who MAKE it possible! No one likes others getting rich off their work -- not even people already rich and don't need more; this isn't greed, it's just plain not wanting THIS bunch of grifters to get rich FOR NOTHING.

Artists have every right to withdraw their products from wherever they want. You arrogant kibitzers like to advise people who've been in the biz longer than you've been alive, but this is one time you should listen to the experts.

And whatever happened to Mike's notion of selling direct? It's turning out in practice that some middlemen are necessary, right? So your ranting about middlemen as such was all wasted. -- You should instead argue on Populist terms that the amounts current (or any) middlemen get are too high for near nothing efforts. -- Because in practice all you're arguing here is FOR middlemen, NOT artists.Visit Mike's other sites at least once a year, fanboys!http://insightcommunity.com/05:33:25[g-090-7]

Does anybody know how much artists get from spotify in comparison to royalties from record labels, actual dollar amounts, not percentages, and over the same period? I suspect the attacks on spotify are more to its existence threatening the existence of the labels than lack of income to the artists.

Re: David Byrne won't see a difference between MICRO-cents and NOTHING.

@ miatajimThanks for the reminder David. Take getting nothing(PB download is completed)is better. ;)Obviously you haven't looked at the rates Spotify pays, but for sure, even if you listen to his tunes a thousand times, it's not going to affect him.

But I do appreciate you making it clear that Techdirt is nothing but a pirate site, habited by sleazy little thieves who actually want to hurt artists if possible because of perfectly legal and reasonable choices of where they market THEIR music.Pirate's checklist:x Hide Identity [x VPN x Proxy x TOR]x Excuses [x Didn't know x Wasn't me x IP isn't ID x Just Sharing]05:46:19[g-117-1]

You can choose to get something, or nothing, but you can't cut me off

I probably shouldn't mention this...

Spotify allows you to drag your "local files" into the Spotify app, and add them to your playlists, and push them out to all your mobile devices. No other service supports seamlessly blending their files with your files, as far as I'm aware.

So if a track is withdrawn from the marketplace, I download the music video from YouTube, and push that up to Spotify. I still get to listen to the song, but now the artist gets nothing, rather than something. That means money that would have gone to them will go to some other artist instead. If that's their choice, then I respect that.

(ObDisclaimer: I don't listen to any Talking Heads music on Spotify or otherwise)

Re: Twernt no lie, it's salesmanship!

@ "JEDIDIAH"

Twernt no lie, it's salesmanship!> Artists have every right to withdraw

You also have the right to aim a shotgun at your own foot and blow it clean off. It doesn't mean that it's in your best interests though.You have NO say in what others choose to decide is in their interests so long as doesn't affect you. For instance, it'd be in YOUR best interests to be forced to labor on a farm from sunup to sundown, eating only natural foods, no entertainment except books. But I doubt you're pleased by do-gooders telling you what's in "your best interests". So just extend to others the rights you wish for yourself; it's the Golden Rule that makes civilization possible.

Re: So why should artists enrich this grifter, either?

Your arguments are only relevant if we ignore that the alternative to Spotify is either doing the distribution yourself or go back to the labels.

The first one, though having the greatest potential profit, since you don't need to share royalties with anyone, is unlikely to be feasible. Distribution is hard...unless you just drop it on bittorrent and let the world be your distribution device. But this notion will probably be unappealing to you.

The label alternative is even worse, IMHO. The labels add virtually nothing, eat a huge chunk of the profits and pay you whenever they feel like it. And their accounting practices guarantee that you'll get screwed.

You often accuse Mike of not providing a solution for problems. It's your time to shine: what is YOUR solution to the distribution problem?

Re: Re: So why should artists enrich this grifter, either?

@ Anonymous Coward

By your reasoning, no artist should let their music be played on the radio, as like spotify it adds nothing and makes money from other peoples works.That is NOT my "reasoning", that's your stoopid misconstruction. I simply state that artists have the right to choose where their products will appear. They may sign it away, of course, but initially true, under common law and statute.

All Spotify has to do is pay the rates wanted, or do without. That's the societal deal for mere entertainments, besides that Spotify is a business, and if can't afford to buy the products it must have in order to get ANY income at all, that's tough. Spotify is just itself greedy and trying to force VERY LOW RATES onto artists, and here you are, sticking up for grifters, NOT the artists.

Why only Spotify?

It blows my mind that all these arguments against Spotify are completely counter to what is actually happening.

Google Music is $10 a month and I can listen to whatever I want, whenever I want, and as often as I want. Isn't that exactly how Spotify works?

Last month I got offered a Youtube partnership with a company called Fullscreen. They offered a deal where I could cover over 100,000 songs and still get most of the money from the advertisements. How much money could the artist, or for that matter the studio, possibly get from what's left over?

Why would the studio make these deals of Spotify is such a horrible thing?

Re: Re: So why should artists enrich this grifter, either?

@ AC:

You often accuse Mike of not providing a solution for problems. It's your time to shine: what is YOUR solution to the distribution problem?No, it's still Mike's turn, smartypants, or yours. Mike has been on this for FIFTEEN years and claims to be an expert in economics. You aren't going to fob his responsibility off onto me. -- BUT in brief: the solution to the distribution problem is to teach pirates that it's OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY and they've no right to just take it. By whatever means needed, 'cause I'm not at all supporting pirates who start with the notion they can take whatever they want.

As for middlemen getting too Rich, here's a tag line which covers them and everyone:The solution for most societal ills is HIGH INCOME TAX RATES. -- WAGES should not be taxed at all! Income originally meant unearned income.06:03:21[h-10-3]

Re: Re: David Byrne won't see a difference between MICRO-cents and NOTHING.

Re: Re: Re: So why should artists enrich this grifter, either?

You live in a world so separated from reality that you could probably make millions of dollars selling the technology you use to break the barrier between dimensions.

We aren't talking about people taking something for nothing, we're talking about copyright owners (we're not talking about artists at this point) agreeing to get payed a set amount and then bitching when they get exactly what they agreed upon.

Re: Re: Re: So why should artists enrich this grifter, either?

"BUT in brief: the solution to the distribution problem is to teach pirates that it's OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY and they've no right to just take it."

That's a nice rant, but that doesn't solve the distribution problem.

The distribution problem is how you get your song from whatever hell-hole you live in to, well, everyone in the world who might want to buy it or otherwise experience it.

You need a distribution channel, be it Pandora, the labels, pirates, or your pet camel. My point is that unless you distribute it yourself (and most certainly not reach all of your potential audience) or let the "pirates" distribute it for you, you're going to need "middleman" (or middlecamels).

"As for middlemen getting too Rich, here's a tag line which covers them and everyone...The solution for most societal ills is HIGH INCOME TAX RATES. -- WAGES should not be taxed at all! Income originally meant unearned income."

That's another great rant, but that doesn't put money in the pocket of the artists, which is the core issue we are trying to tackle here.

Streaming is a new technology, the companies building on it are still relatively small businesses who are trying to create a new business model.

Yes, there are problems but what business model did not have problems in it's infancy? Comments from the likes of Yorke and Byrne (who, don't forget, have vested interests in maintaining the old business model) are not helpful. They are just rants and do not make any suggestions on how to develop the streaming model to make sure it is viable for new artists.

I extend to authors the exclusive rights comprising copyright against natural persons, as defined and limited in 17 USC and applicable case law, only in such instances where natural persons are engaged in commercial activity, as determined only by the presence of commercial factors beyond the mere otherwise-infringing activity; Otherwise-infringing activity does not itself compromise commercial activity, nor do effects upon the commercial viability of the work, nor may non-commercial factors be considered.

Well, that was no problem at all, and now I guess, according to your post, I can pirate whatever I like, and share it with the world, so long as I just pirate and don't make money or try to recoup my costs. After all, I don't want any more than that for myself, and this is indeed how I would like to be treated by others.

Mr Byrne, I Think I Might Have Spotted a Problem

The major record labels usually siphon off most of this income, and then they dribble about 15-20% of what's left down to their artists. Indie labels are often a lot fairer – sometimes sharing the income 50/50.

As an artist, if you didn't associate yourself with a record label, would you get 100% of the payout from Spotify?

What isn't addressed in Byrne's article is that Spotify actually provides income as opposed to piracy. How many Spotify listeners are former pirates?

And I take issue with the notion that a musician might expect a minimum wage income from Spotify simply by recording a 4 minute song.

But the most promising thing in this article is the notion of a Content Creators Coalition. For too long musicians have been letting the RIAA work on their behalf - but it's always been for the label's benefit, not the musicians. Perhaps Byrne should have written about that instead?

Re:

The major labels are the primary shareholders in Spotify. It certainly is not the case that they want Spotify to fail; they want it to be the only game in town so they can get a piece of the entire revenue pie. I suspect their royalties from Spotify plays are inconsequential compared to what they stand to make by being shareholders in the entire enterprise; they also don't have to split those earnings with their artists.

Thom Yorke is right, mostly. The general idea of streaming isn't as problematic as the fact that Spotify is simply an extension of the old music industry gatekeepers' reach into artist's pockets.

Re:

And I take issue with the notion that a musician might expect a minimum wage income from Spotify simply by recording a 4 minute song.

That's an odd stance to take. In most cases, a four minute song has much more work behind it than four minutes. And they usually produce much more than just one four minute song.

Besides, you could look at input time from the other end. If the four minute song in question was played one million times, that's four million minutes of labor/service that Spotify is reaping the majority of the benefit from. Also keep in mind that Spotify does very little to expose an artist, the musician will still have to put in all the labor of marketing and promotion to get people to seek and stream the track in the first place.

Now, I don't totally agree with Yorke or Byrne on all of this, but I think the debate is being painted in a disingenuous manner. Spotify is the major labels. That was what I took from Thom Yorke's 'rant.'

Re: Re: Re: So why should artists enrich this grifter, either?

So you're saying I should seek out the most expensive way to acquire music because I have so much respect for musicians?

Spotify pays, but not enough. Does iTunes pay enough? Do I buy the CD from Amazon, or Barnes & Noble, where it costs even more? Why isn't there a service that lets me pay $20 to download a 4 minute song?

You never seem to understand that it's the market that sets the prices, not the artist or the label. And Spotify is not piracy.

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

"that's four million minutes of labor/service that Spotify is reaping the majority of the benefit from."

Wow, is that wrong. That's four million minutes of service that Spotify is providing. They provide the severs and the Internet connectivity powerful enough to provide those four million minutes plus the four million minutes for thousands of other songs.

While it may have taken more the four minutes to make the song, there's no way in hell that it took four million minutes. You can't claim four million minutes of labor unless you actually did the four million minutes.

As has been pointed out before, most of the money that Spotify makes goes to paying royalties.

"Also keep in mind that Spotify does very little to expose an artist"

A recent bitch fest about Spotify is users being allowed to make and share playlists. They provide a platform for users to share the music they like with others. Word of mouth is a vary powerful thing that doesn't cost a damn thing (except to the people who built the platform). Spotify also has a vested interest in getting more and more people to use their service. That means showing potential paying customers what they can get out of the service.

Re:

Re: Re:

Besides, you could look at input time from the other end. If the four minute song in question was played one million times, that's four million minutes of labor/service that Spotify is reaping the majority of the benefit from

Another example of MAFIAA maths in action, somehow every replay of a recording is equivalent to the original labour. A more accurate equivalent of labour, allowing that maybe a mo0ths work went into creating and recording a song would be (20 * 8 * 60) / 1,000,000 = 0.0096 of a minute pay per replay. (note assumed 5 working days of 8 hours in a month).

Re: Re:

If the four minute song in question was played one million times, that's four million minutes of labor/service that Spotify is reaping the majority of the benefit from.

No it's not. While it might've taken longer to create a song from first idea to when it hits shelves, the amount of time it takes, and the amount of work put in, is not based on its popularity. That's just ridiculous.

Re: Re:

Spotify also takes and recommends artists to you based on your playlists and what you listen to. Seems to me that helps promote artists as well. I found a few artists I'd never heard of that way. Bought their music too.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: David Byrne won't see a difference between MICRO-cents and NOTHING.

I am what you consider a pirate, true...but I'm not only that. I buy DVDS.I buy Blu-rays.I buy PC games on disc.I buy console games on disc.I buy PC games through Steam.I buy console games through their respective online networks.I am now paying for streaming anime via Crunchyroll.

In short, I buy an insane amount of entertainment, paid for with cold hard cash. Care for a rebuttal?

Re: Re: Re: So why should artists enrich this grifter, either?

Mike's responsibility? Since when? Why? How? Why is it MIKE MASNICK'S SOLE RESPONSIBILITY to fix copyright law? Just because he's been talking about it for years? So fucking what?

As for your tag line - so no wages should be taxed, but unearned income should be? What the fuck is unearned income? Money you stole? So in your insane world, the average worker who earns his monthly salary doesn't pay taxes, but the pickpocket who lifts wallets on the high street should be reporting what he stole and paying taxes on that?

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Why only Spotify?

The NMPA doesn't represent all studios just like the RIAA doesn't represent all studios. If you're signed up with Fullscreen, there's a list of songs that they allow you to use. If someone uses a song outside of that, then shit happens.

Specifically, it's Universal Music that has the agreement with Fullscreen.

I also think it's mildly funny that Techcrunch's noscript page is 404ed.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

yes, Yes, YES ! ! !THANK you, THAT is exactly what has beetled my brow during this whole tempest in a teapot: THE LABELS are taking the lion's share of the 'royalties', and giving 'their' artist's a pittance (as per usual), and the idiot artists are blaming SPOTIFY/et al, INSTEAD of the labels ? ? ?

i'm sorry, that just sounds like the stupidest rationalization i have ever heard... i mean bone-deep stupid...

when i hear the (MOSTLY rich, MOSTLY 'entitled') musicians say this shit, i think: good thing they can make a living off of playing/singing, 'cause they sure aren't cut out for the real world...

i guess they are so stupid as individuals, they *really* do need lawyers, and accountants, and stylists, and managers, and valets, and personal assistants up the ying yang, because evidently they are incompetent thinkers who are unable to take care of themselves...

Re: So why should artists enrich this grifter, either?

That's as dumb as saying that your local grocery store adds nothing to the food supply chain and they make SHEER PROFIT for doing nothing.

For someone who argues all the time about sunk (or fixed) costs, you have a really huge blind spot when it comes to developing and maintaining anything that involves technology. It's like you think magic elves build and program all that stuff and mystical unicorns pay for those rooms full of servers and all of that bandwidth.

And whatever happened to Mike's notion of selling direct? It's turning out in practice that some middlemen are necessary, right? So your ranting about middlemen as such was all wasted.

Now you are really showing your dumbass colors, Blue. Mike has never argued against middleman and has even argued that many of the middleman are absolutely required. What Mike has argued against are gatekeepers who attempt to place artificial restrictions on a market. There's a huge difference between the two. Get you facts straight before admonishing other people, otherwise it just makes you look even more ignorant.

Re: Re: Re: Re: So why should artists enrich this grifter, either?

well, the market is *supposed* to set the prices, but in monopolistic type situations (*just like* the labels who effectively collude to maintain high prices) that doesn't work: one party holds all the cards (guess who that is), and can enforce whatever terms they feel like...

the mafiaa will only respond slightly to 'market' pressures, when they know they have the full weight of a bought-and-paid-for gummint to do their enforcement...

just more gatekeepers trying to hold back the tide of his story with a teaspoon...

Re: Re: Re: Re: So why should artists enrich this grifter, either?

Unearned income basically means income which you didn't earn from your labor. IIRC (I'm not an economist or tax specialist, so I may be off here) --

Income from investments into a business, whether as dividends or by a sale of the investment after it has increased in value, is a classic one.

Benefits programs -- from welfare payments to life insurance payouts to pensions -- are unearned income.

Gifts and inheritances are unearned income, as are gambling winnings.

And the other big category is income made from property other than from the ordinary selling of inventory in the course of a business. For example, rentals, royalties, licenses, mineral rights, etc.

Which means, perhaps ironically, that OOTB wants musicians not to be taxed for income derived from their labor eg if they got paid to play a gig, but does want them to be taxed on their copyright royalty income if they sell records.

LOL. I was going by the common sense definition of unearned income. In my opinion, I would have thought that income from business investments would be earned, since you paid money in legitimately in the hope of a return, ditto with gambling. As for property, rentals would be earned income as well in my books, since you can call it the selling of use of a property for a limited time. I'm renting where I live, my landlady is selling me the usage and space, which is a scarce commodity.

Re: Re: Re:

I wish I got paid each time people walk along the pavement I finished laying the other day.

I like bring up the Master Plumber scenario in these types of arguments.

To become a Master Plumber you usually need an Associates Degree and years and years of work experience working your way up from Apprentice to Journeyman to Master Plumber. Then you need to pass a licensing test. Master Plumbers are of extreme importance to our modern society. (ie: you really want to go back to crapping in a hole in the ground or carting water from a nearby stream?)

Does a Master Plumber get to charge for every time you flush your toilet? No, they don't. So why do musicians believe they deserve compensation every time you listen to a song? I'm am seriously asking this question, because I really don't get the mindset behind that thinking.

n my opinion, I would have thought that income from business investments would be earned, since you paid money in legitimately in the hope of a return, ditto with gambling.

No, it's too passive. Think of the difference between John Smith, who works in a coal mine every day for a paycheck, and earns a living, vs. Lord Snobbington, who merely owns the land the mine is on, and collects money from it without having to have his servants lift one of his fingers for him. Merely investing money, or buying a lottery ticket, is way over toward the passive side of things. It's not work to pay money and expect to be repaid, plus more, later on, if you do nothing in between. At least a shopkeeper actively works at selling his inventory.

As for property, rentals would be earned income as well in my books, since you can call it the selling of use of a property for a limited time.

Again, it's too passive; property maintenance services is a job, and so is working for a property rental company as an agent, but collecting a check from a lessee every month merely because you own the property is not a job.

the usage and space, which is a scarce commodity.

She didn't make it scarce and she doesn't keep it scarce; she just profits from it happening to be scarce.

I recently discovered a talented young singer/songwriter on Spotify. After listening to his debut album on Spotify (for which he was paid), I purchased a vinyl copy of the same album. About a month later, I bought two tickets to his show at a venue in a nearby town. About a month later, he announced a show in my town. I bought two tickets to that show the day they went on sale.

Without Spotify, I would have never heard this guy and the artist would have lost out on record sales and concert ticket sales and a lifelong fan.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The master plumber doesn't get paid every time you flush, but the water department does. The toilet is the ipod and the flush is the music. And apt comparison!

Nobody thinks the artist should get paid every time you hear a song. They think the artist should get paid every time a business plays the song for you to hear. They think the business needs permission to broadcast that song, and permission often includes payment. Hence licensing.

Of course, radio gets away with broadcasting music for free without permission, but streaming services don't, which is one big point of controversy.

Spotify is just another proprietary form of music distribution. Why are we so enraptured by it? You don't need to agree to terms and conditions and make an account to listen to FM radio. Why do services that limit the rights of listeners and artists deserve defending?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Nobody thinks the artist should get paid every time you hear a song. They think the artist should get paid every time a business plays the song for you to hear. They think the business needs permission to broadcast that song, and permission often includes payment. Hence licensing.

I'd disagree.

Performing artists (as distinguished from songwriters) have never been paid royalties on terrestrial radio and have never been in a position where their permission mattered.

Since this doesn't seem to have had negative effects on the music performing segment of the industry, and since that segment had been pretty healthy overall, and since there is no reason to believe that ending that policy will cause that segment of the industry to blossom tremendously, there's no need to change it.

It's like paying squeegee men on the street; if they do something without a promise of compensation, they've no justification for complaining when they don't get compensated after having done it. Performing artists are willing to let their sound recordings be played for free, whenever the radio station wants to. If they weren't, they wouldn't cut records. I say we leave things the way they are and not readdress the issue unless there's some reason to believe that the public would be left better off by making a change.

Likewise, the US permits many businesses to play the radio publicly without having to get permission or pay royalties, under certain circumstances. Even though this was adjudged to violate our international treaty obligations, we have kept the so-called homestyle exception.

If artists really cared, they'd do something significant enough to make the public feel that the public interest is best served by changing our policies. But they appear not to care enough to do that. So why should we change it, if it serves the public interest now and the alternative doesn't look to be an improvement?

All I see is a money grab with no muscle behind it. It's like being mugged by a kitten; who would stand for it? When the artists can show that doing something in their interests is in the public interest, then we'll have something to talk about. Until then, they just seem to want us to ignore the public interest, and that shouldn't happen; it's far more important than any other.

(As for digital radio, they got screwed by short sighted terrestrial radio lobbyists, who thought that the new segment of the industry could be destroyed by the NAB siding with copyright holders. They were fools, as the argument of unequal treatment is now being used against terrestrial radio. They ought to wise up and get the law changed to give digital radio the same advantages as terrestrial; better some competition at that level than getting dragged under.)

Disappointing, especially as it means that the album of Byrne's I have queued will join the Atoms For Peace album in the list of "albums I'd like to check out, but it they're not on Spotify I'm not interested enough to play these games".

I don't have time to read the editotial thoroughly, but the following summary makes me think they're missed the point:

"These artists have withheld their music from the super-popular streaming service simply because they've deemed the payout too low, and the risk of losing sales too high"

Their choice of course, but they will have failed to consider the following use cases:

- People who have bought the albums already but find Spotify's playlists more convenient- People who have already bought the albums, want to listen to the album but didn't sync it when they synced their device- People who listen from work as well as at home, and do so with Spotify rather than trying to stream from their home network- People who want to listen to an album but don't have room on their device to download from iTunes at that time- People who never buy an album blind, but don't have any other legal way to preview the album

...and so on. The problem is that they only seem to consider 2 use cases and thus 2 types of revenue. Buying an album OR listening via a stream. It's worth noting that most of the ideas I've listed above (all of which I've done myself) represents revenue IN ADDITION TO an album sale, not as a replacement for it.

I can't say for sure that the scenarios I present are the majority, but it's clear that in some cases they're actively refusing money from existing fans in the hope of getting more money elsewhere.

That's their choice, but my reaction to not being able to play one of their tracks next time the urge arises is not going to be "wow, I have to buy the album now!". It's going to be "OK, who else is on Spotify instead then?".

Re:

"Why do services that limit the rights of listeners and artists deserve defending?"

Erm, what listener rights are being limited?

With FM radio, I have to listen to whatever the DJ chooses to play. On most mainstream radio stations, that usually means whatever a major label has to try to market right now, often accompanied by illegal bribes to get them prioritised.

With Spotify, I choose what I want to listen to when I want to listen to it, from a choice of more albums than I could ever listen to sequentially in my lifetime.

Pray tell, how is the latter infringing on my rights more than the latter?

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

"As an American listener, I don't get much exposure to European music, but Spotify regularly suggests artists I would never have heard of, but are awesome."

Hell, you don't have to wait for them to suggest it. If you go to the "top lists" section, you can see the top 100 songs and albums in each country where they operate. I'm not sure if the app selection is the same worldwide, but I currently get UK publications such as NME and The Guardian, and apps for BBC and San Miguel playlists have recently appeared. There's even apps aimed at helping you learn a language by playing songs in that language. Try doing that with FM radio.

Sometimes, I honestly can't help but feel that some of these artists are just falling for a FUD campaign, perpetrated by those who are scared of how much control these services take out of their hands.

Re: Re:

"that's four million minutes of labor/service that Spotify is reaping the majority of the benefit from."

This idiotic statement that bears no relationship to reality is a great example of why this argument is so skewed. If you honestly believe this, you're delusional and a huge part of the problem.

Actual labour/service from the artist = however long it took to write and record the song, be that 30 minutes or 3 months (great songs can be named that took either length of time).

4 million minutes of playback time on Spotify of that song = ZERO additional hours of labour from the original artist.

However, 4 million minutes of playback from Spotify = 4 million minutes of service and labour from SPOTIFY!

The artist is entitled to royalties from those playback and to be paid for their initial work (plus more!), but you have to be totally out of whack with reality to equate every playback with labour from the artist.

"Spotify is the major labels. That was what I took from Thom Yorke's 'rant.'"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"If he was relevant I shouldn't have to pay attention because I'd be hearing him everywhere."

So, you're saying that only people who are promoted in the mainstream by major labels are "relevant"? Do you only think that something being sold by a major corporation counts for anything? That's a pretty stupid assumption, and leaves you blind to most modern reality.

Oh, and maybe it's different where you are, but how have you avoided at least hearing his collaboration "Lazy" with X-Press 2 over the last decade? That thing plays *everywhere*.

Re: Re: Re: David Byrne won't see a difference between MICRO-cents and NOTHING.

He won't answer, but this is a great insight into his tiny mind. People can pay to use a perfectly legitimate, perfectly legal service that's fully licensed with the support of most of its content providers. But, people who use it are still "thieves" and "pirates" because he feels that not enough money has been extracted from you to listen to the content you've paid for.

He's living on a fictional plane of reality, and is unable to deal with the fact that he's arguing with legitimate customers of the industry he's supporting. Yet, in other threads, he attacks Mike for being a corporatist because he said something nice about Google. Amazing, but this is the best the industry has as a defence? No wonder they're scared.

Re: Re: Re: Re: So why should artists enrich this grifter, either?

"BUT in brief: the solution to the distribution problem is to teach pirates that it's OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY and they've no right to just take it."

That is wrong on so many levels. Music is not property, nor is performance. That it's being TREATED as property is the problem.

Paying the artists is a separate problem and can easily be resolved by explaining to them about market forces and the fact that they should be as subject to them as the rest of us are. Why should artists be cushioned from the same realities as other producers?

Re: You can choose to get something, or nothing, but you can't cut me off

Google music allows for you to upload/match 20,000 of your own files for free which you can then stream to the app or through a browser. If you have All Access you can also pin any and as much music from the service to your device (sadly not your PC as far as I know) as you want for offline listening.

It's not exactly comparable to what spotify does and I wouldn't say one is distinctly better in that regard, it's just personal taste. I really like how Google integrates both my own music and the all access stuff in to the same space. An EP I brought from a small local band I went to see the other week is no different to some new artist I found through the radio and pin to my device etc. And I much prefer the UI, radio, and integration offered but that comes with hangs ups... there is for example no way to 'just' log in to google music as far as I know meaning that using it for a party is a pain... but ya... I like it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"So, you're saying that only people who are promoted in the mainstream by major labels are "relevant"? Do you only think that something being sold by a major corporation counts for anything?"

I don't listen to any major label music, nor do I listen to the radio, and I cut the cable cord 6 years ago. So the answer to both questions are "No". I am very much in touch with the modern reality that the internet is the best way of discovering new, quality music, and I avoid any "corporate music" at all costs. It's all crap. There's nothing ground breaking coming from the regurgitated pap the major labels pump out year after year. That always begins in the underground which is where I find all my music.

Never heard "Lazy" anywhere before and never heard it until now. 30 seconds of it on YouTube was all I could handle. Interesting that the one example you gave was over a decade old and he had to partner with someone else to make it a "hit"... though one I've never heard.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"So the answer to both questions are "No". I am very much in touch with the modern reality that the internet is the best way of discovering new, quality music, and I avoid any "corporate music" at all costs."

In that case, it's strange that you missed Byrne's most recent activities being mentioned. I wonder which sources you use, because they're clearly very different from mine.

So, what are your criteria for being "relevant", then? It seems very strange that you will simultaneously block yourself off from a large number of outlets then reject a person's opinion just because you never hear their music.

"Interesting that the one example you gave was over a decade old"

It was released 17 years after the 1985 cut off date you gave. But, it's not a valid example because it's too old now. Right.

I just mentioned the first song that came to mind, and one that was fairly ubiquitous in most bars, clubs, gyms, background music in TV shows and numerous other places even if I didn't deliberately watch or listen to mainstream music outlets. Maybe where I live is different but that damn thing was everywhere for a couple of years.

There are other songs and albums I could mention, but you're clearly not interested in addressing anything outside of your little bubble. It's just a shame that some people will outright reject the opinions of people for such arbitrary reasons. I disagree with Byrne's stance, but "I didn't listen to him recently so he can't be relevant" is not a good reason.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I wonder which sources you use, because they're clearly very different from mine."

Obviously. I have numerous sources all across the web. Far too many to list, but I stay away from major label promoting sites like Billboard.

"So, what are your criteria for being "relevant", then?"

Being active and still having the ability to make some ground breaking music that isn't just a cookie cutter copy of everything they've done in the past. That's the point where "is" turns into "was" as far as relevance goes as I see it. Once you stop appealing to new listeners and only appeal to longtime fans, I believe relevance becomes a thing of the past in the wider picture of things. Then the point is reached of being a "has been". I'm no fan of Madonna, but she has always been a master of reinventing herself, attracting new fans and this is what has kept her relevant all these years even though she doesn't appeal to me. Also in my original comment I said "still relevant" I never said that he never was.

"I just mentioned the first song that came to mind, and one that was fairly ubiquitous in most bars, clubs, gyms, background music in TV shows and numerous other places even if I didn't deliberately watch or listen to mainstream music outlets. Maybe where I live is different but that damn thing was everywhere for a couple of years."

I don't know where you live, how old you are, what you like to do for enjoyment, or anything, but it's obvious we live in two different worlds. I've never heard that song in any bar or TV show and I don't hang out in clubs or gyms. I've been a musician for over 30 years myself so I do pay attention to the world of music around me which includes things I like as well as things I don't like. A night out for me is typically a night of live music, not DJs or jukeboxes. Just because David Byrne is still present in your bubble doesn't mean he's still in everyone else's bubble as well.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Obviously. I have numerous sources all across the web. Far too many to list, but I stay away from major label promoting sites like Billboard."

OK, that doesn't really narrow it down except to confirm that you've probably been hanging out in the *least* likely places for Byrne to be covered. Great. Those people would be the most likely to reject him as a has-been or whatever, hence my original faulty assumption about you.

"Being active and still having the ability to make some ground breaking music that isn't just a cookie cutter copy of everything they've done in the past."

Cool. So how does that translate into "I haven't heard anything from Byrne recently so he's irrelevant now"?

"I've been a musician for over 30 years myself so I do pay attention to the world of music around me which includes things I like as well as things I don't like. "

Which makes me wonder how you could miss such a big hit, but hey, as you say you're not into that kind of music. Fair enough.

"Just because David Byrne is still present in your bubble doesn't mean he's still in everyone else's bubble as well."

I wouldn't necessarily say he's 100% relevant in mine either, I was just questioning your faulty logic. He's definitely still working, and is hardly doing so as a cookie cutter top 40 artist, which undermines your premise.

Either way, that's cool. As long as you accept that "he's not relevant in my life" doesn't translate to "his opinion is not relevant in any discussion on the subject of his industry".

I'm not saying Byrne is a huge artist whose opinion is very important, I just tire of the "I don't like him/I've never heard of him" excuse for rejecting someone's stance outright. You rejected him in this way because you'd not personally heard anything from him in several decades. I merely wanted to point out that a great many people have, so your excuse for rejecting anything he says was rather silly.

This list is in no way a representation of my musical tastes, just a comparison of many of the bands from the same time period. A billion people have indirectly spoken and put into perspective how irrelevant David Byrne is from his era of time plus 3 people I randomly asked today of which 1 simply said "Who?" and 2 said "Who's that? The Talking Heads guy?".

Hell, even John Denver kicks his ass with 501,274 likes (.05% relevant)

I await your response void of opinion and with numbers to counter my research.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Christ, you did this? I'm just checking through my emails to see what appeared in the days I didn't manage to check in and you were still obsessing over this? FFS, in your rant you didn't even manage to get the correct genre for the one he's been working and collaborating in. Where's the electronic, experimental and dance music acts in your list, particularly the ones from the 80s and early 90s who are still working (there are many) that would be most relevant to his last 2 decades of output?

Stop it now. You stated that Byrne wasn't relevant because he hadn't had a song you heard since 1985. I mentioned that he has indeed had at least top 10 UK/#1 US dance hit that played constantly in the mainstream. Trolling Facebook for page likes isn't going to change that.

Plus, I do find it interesting that you initially responded by defending yourself against the accusation that you were interested only in the mainstream. Yet, your defense now consists solely of a list of how popular those acts are with the mainstream. Hmmm...

You will notice a significant amount of work following your 1985 cut off date, some of which has charted well, some not. But, he's released a significant amount of work whether you personally heard it or not.

So, unless you want to pretend that mainstream success is all that matters (thus proving you a liar above), Byrne is relevant to *some* people, even if not you personally.

It's amazing that you argue this point so strongly, when all I've said is that while I don't agree with his opinion, his relevance to you personally isn't the sole criteria for whether it's relevant. You still haven't countered this point, only argued the toss over the fact that he's had popular songs you didn't happen to know about.

I will thank you for one thing, however. I listened back to a few of X-Press 2's albums (on Spotify, no less) as a result of this silly argument. Brought back some memories of a couple of good summers in the mid 90s and early 2000s. Involving acts and genres you actively avoid, apparently, so obviously they're irrelevant.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

1. Check the dates. That response was hours later not days. FFS, you're the one who came back a week later.

2. Whether you want to admit it or not, those numbers make it pretty clear that there's not too many people in the world paying attention to anything he's doing, no matter what the genre.

3. I don't give a rat's ass about mainstream music and specifically stated that wasn't a reflection of my musical tastes. While I've done my best to keep my comments strictly about David Byrne, you've stretched it a bit to take personal digs at me.

4. I'm not reading anything but more opinion here so goodbye. We are never going to agree on this topic but perhaps in the future we'll agree on something else that actually matters.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"1. Check the dates. That response was hours later not days. FFS, you're the one who came back a week later."

I was just amazed that you went to these lengths to find data that still didn't prove what you were saying - and actually managed to shine doubt on your other statements. I mentioned it had been a few days since I checked my email so it was known that was the reason for my late reply.

"2. Whether you want to admit it or not, those numbers make it pretty clear that there's not too many people in the world paying attention to anything he's doing, no matter what the genre."

Not really. You picked a metric out of your arse, then used a comparison of that metric against people working in other genres. I wonder how many of your "non mainstream" favourite bands would fare in a similar matchup? I bet you don't use that to measure their worth, huh?

Even if the metric had been chosen and used correctly, it still wouldn't explain why Byrne's opinion as working musician is meaningless as you claimed, and how popular he is compared to the Eagles doesn't really matter a jot. If you're arguing that Facebook popularity is a metric that matters, you're arguing for mainstream musicians to be more valid than underground ones, and that's a fact.

Here's the real metric: Byrne is a working musician who's sold enough albums and singles at various points in his career to break the top 40 in various charts around the world over several decades. While not all his work has been as successful, he has continued to work in the industry as a professional musician. Spending your time searching random unrelated bands in Facebook doesn't change that.

"perhaps in the future we'll agree on something else that actually matters."

Perhaps. What mystifies me is why you're so intent on arguing the toss over a factually untrue statement you made if you agree it doesn't matter. If you'd merely have said "yeah, Byrne did have some hits since 1985 even I hadn't heard them, and his popularity as a working musician doesn't determine the validity of his opinion", we'd have been done. You already admitted to deliberately ignoring the genre he's largely been working in for the last couple of decades, so there's not even any shame in not being aware of his work.

But you couldn't bring yourself to admit that for some reason, and instead started using metrics like Facebook popularity to try and argue a point - a very strange tactic for someone "not interested" in the mainstream. We can hopefully agree in the future, but "the opinion of a musician working for several decades is irrelevant because he doesn't have a high enough number of Facebook likes" is not one of the things we'll ever agree upon. Again, I think he's wrong, but I'm not rejecting his arguments based on such flimsy excuses.

Pop Whores

Get real - streaming sites have no business model and devalue music. They claim they are giving exposure. My landlord doesn't give a damn about me telling people he's a great landlord. I'm not all about the money either, but ffs, if its going to be given away and I get nothing, I'd rather those decisions were left to me and I wasn't helping fund cars I can't even dream of. If everyone making bugger all cash from this bullshit pulled their music, the thing would collapse.

Re:

"Get real - streaming sites have no business model and devalue music"

Two lies straight off the bat. At least you bothered to identify yourself, even though I've never heard of you or your music before. Yet I have done now, purely due to Spotify, who you claim give you no exposure? Well, you don't seem to know that you can't sell music to people if they've never heard of you, so there's that...

"if its going to be given away and I get nothing, I'd rather those decisions were left to me"

You get *something*, even if your greedy ass wants more. This isn't piracy, it's a legal agreement between you (or your label) and Spotify. Don't like it? Don't put your music on Spotify. Just don't whine to us when you lose other business because radio is somehow evil and scary when labels aren't paying for your music to be broadcast for free.

"If everyone making bugger all cash"

Some people are making plenty of money. If you're not one of them, try to work out why. Here's a hint: if I search for you on Spotify, not only are you there (meaning you've agreed to have your music there, or you have an agent/label who has done it for you), but you only have 26 followers. Just 26 people interested enough in you as an artist to want updates from you from a potential pool of at least 20 million (according to the latest figures I can see on a quick Wikipedia scan, 5 million of whom are paying a subscription fee). That's not Spotify's fault. Nor is it Soundcloud's fault that you've uploaded your music there for free. Nor presumably any of the other resources you willingly use while whining about them.

That's ultimately the problem. Whining about demonstrable losses from a changing market is one thing, as is the understandable (if wrong-headed) complaint that Spotify don't pay purchase levels of royalties. But, whining about not being paid for music you're willingly giving away for free, while simultaneous complaining there's no additional value to doing so? What a hypocritical ass you are.

Dynamic Spotify handling

Interviewing independent label-managers here in Norway about this lately I found some interesting strategies in relation to Spotify. Some of the smaller that was took all recordings off Spotify a couple of years ago are now back because they did not see any increase in sales in download while they were away. Others maintain a policy where they keep new records out for 3 years before putting what is then a back catalogue back on. They insist this is good for business, but do not say it would be the best for all labels regardless off musical styles. For one, KKV, the oldest independent record company in Norway, it makes sense because so many of their customers, even in tech savvy Norway, still wants CDs AND because in some years sell as much as half of their records in countries like Germany and the US, where streaming is still generally small, but especially small for their repertoire.